For the full report — Iowa Nutrient Reduction Strategy — go to www.nutrientstrategy.iastate.edu Section 3 — Point Source Nutrient Reduction Technology Assessment and Implementation Plan Section 3.1 Technology Assessment and Implementation Plan Establishing Effluent Limits The following describes the applicable federal and state laws and regulations pertaining to the establishment of effluent limits in NPDES permits. There are two bases for establishing effluent limits: technology and water quality. Technology-­‐based limits establish the floor or minimum level of treatment a facility must provide. More stringent water quality-­‐based limits must be imposed in permits when the technology-­‐based limits will not assure compliance with state water quality standards. Technology-­‐Based Limits for POTWs Technology-­‐based limits for POTWs have been established by EPA in 40 §CFR 133 under authority of Section 304(d) of the Clean Water Act and represent the degree of reduction attainable through the application of secondary wastewater treatment technology. Technology-­‐based effluent limits for a pollutant not covered by federal effluent standards may be imposed on a case-­‐by-­‐case basis (IAC 567-­‐
62.8(5)). Such limitation must be based on the effect of the pollutant in water and the feasibility and reasonableness of treating such pollutant. Although continuously evolving, many nutrient removal technologies in wastewater treatment are already proven and well-­‐established. Thus, nutrient removal for Iowa’s wastewater treatment facilities is technologically feasible. The primary mechanism IDNR will use in assessing the “reasonableness” of nutrient removal for individual facilities is the estimated costs for improvements and the ability of end users to afford those costs. Affordability of wastewater treatment improvements is dependent upon a number of factors including capital costs, existing and projected debt service, and operation and maintenance costs. Without detailed financial information from a facility it is not possible to determine affordability. Screening criteria are available to indicate the likelihood that a project will be affordable with minimal information. EPA economic guidance (U.S. EPA 1995) and proposed rules to implement the new disadvantaged communities’ law (455B.199B) suggest that if the ratio of projected total wastewater costs to a community’s Median Household Income (MHI) is less than one percent, then a project is affordable barring very weak community economic indicators. If the ratio is greater than two percent then a project is not affordable unless economic indicators are strong. Projects resulting in a ratio between one and two percent may or may not be considered affordable dependent upon the strength of secondary economic indicators such as comparison of county MHI to statewide MHI, bond rating, etc. Section 3.2 shows that nutrient reduction costs are generally affordable for most of Iowa’s major municipal facilities based on the ratio of estimated project cost to Median Household Income (MHI). These same facilities also have the largest design flows and, in general, the greatest point source nutrient contribution. If the communities served by major municipal facilities can afford a project cost/MHI ratio of 0.5%, the design flow treated by those facilities for which nutrient reduction is affordable is over 550 MGD, or roughly 86% of the total design flow for all major municipal facilities. This relationship is shown in Figure 3-­‐1 below. 1
Figure 3-­‐1: Three Tiers of Nutrient Removal The three most commonly cited “tiers” of nutrient removal are Biological Nutrient Removal (BNR), Enhanced Nutrient Removal (ENR) and the Limit of Technology (LOT). Biological Nutrient Removal is commonly associated with sequenced combinations of aerobic, anoxic and anaerobic processes which facilitate biological denitrification via conversion of nitrate to nitrogen gas and “luxury” uptake of phosphorus by biomass with subsequent removal through wasting of sludge (biomass). Effluent limits achievable using BNR at wastewater treatment facilities that treat primarily domestic wastewater are 10 mg/L of total nitrogen (TN) and 1.0 mg/L of total phosphorus (TP). Enhanced Nutrient Removal typically uses BNR with chemical precipitation and granular media filtration to achieve lower effluent nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations than can be achieved through BNR alone. ENR systems are capable of producing effluent with nitrogen and phosphorus values of about 6 mg/L of total nitrogen and 0.2 mg/L of total phosphorus (Falk et al. 2011). The term “Limit of Technology” (LOT) is generally associated with the lowest effluent concentrations that can be achieved using any treatment technology or suite of technologies. It is commonly referenced as an upper bound in nutrient removal performance. However, there is no consensus or regulatory definition establishing specific treatment requirements for the LOT. As such, effluent values associated with the LOT are debatable. Some have proposed statistical approaches that define the LOT as the minimum effluent concentrations that can be expected to be reliably met over a specific averaging period using widely available and proven treatment processes (Neethling et al. 2009, Bott et al. 2009). Commonly referenced thresholds for the LOT for BNR are 3 mg/L for total nitrogen and 0.1 mg/L for total phosphorus (U.S. EPA 2007, Jeyanayagam 2005). Lower effluent values are possible using tertiary chemical addition & filtration, 2
advanced effluent membrane filtration, ion exchange and/or adsorption processes but may not be practical. Technology Based Limits for Industries Technology-­‐based limits for industrial discharges are established by federal effluent guidelines adopted in 40 CFR subchapter N, under the authority of CWA Sections 304 and 306, and are adopted in the state of Iowa by reference in IAC 567-­‐62.4. Where EPA has not promulgated a federal standard for a particular industrial category, technology-­‐based limits must be developed on a case-­‐by-­‐case basis at the time of permit issuance (CWA section 402(a)(1)(B) and IAC 567-­‐62.6(3)(a)). In developing case-­‐by-­‐case technology-­‐
based limits for industries, the limits must conform to 40 CFR Part 125 Subpart A – Criteria and Standards for Imposing Technology-­‐Based Treatment Requirements. EPA has promulgated federal effluent guidelines for 57 classes of industries but, with few exceptions, such effluent standards do not establish technology-­‐based requirements for total nitrogen or total phosphorus. Where there are promulgated federal guidelines for TN or TP, the NPDES permit will contain effluent limits consistent with those guidelines. Data on the amounts of nitrogen and phosphorus discharged by industries is not readily available but likely varies significantly based on the type of industry. For example, process wastewater discharged by a meat processing facility will likely contain significantly higher nutrient concentrations than the discharge from a steam electric power plant. Most industries do not operate biological wastewater treatment plants because the characteristics of their wastewater makes biological treatment unnecessary so requiring all industries to install BNR is not reasonable. All major industries and minor industries with existing biological treatment systems will be required to collect data on the source, concentration and mass of total nitrogen and total phosphorus in their effluent and to evaluate alternatives for reducing the amounts of both pollutants in their discharge. IDNR will use the results of these evaluations to establish case-­‐by-­‐case technology-­‐based effluent limits in NPDES permits except in cases where the industry is subject to a federal effluent standard for total nitrogen or total phosphorus. The nitrogen and phosphorus effluent limits for industries and for POTWs with significant industrial loads will be determined consistent with 40 CFR Part 125 Subpart A and IAC 567-­‐62.8(5). Water Quality-­‐Based Limits The second basis for establishing NPDES permit limits is through state water quality standards; this is the “water quality-­‐based” process. NPDES permits must contain requirements as needed for discharges to meet water quality standards (IAC 567-­‐62.8(2)). Where implementation of technology-­‐based limits for a wastewater discharge will not assure compliance with the water quality standards, permits must specify more stringent water quality-­‐based effluent limits. While Iowa has not yet adopted numeric standards for total nitrogen or total phosphorus from which water quality-­‐based effluent limits can be derived, permits must still contain necessary requirements to assure compliance with (1) narrative “free-­‐from” water quality criteria in the Iowa Water Quality Standards that are applicable to all surface waters at all places and at all times (IAC 567-­‐61.3(2)) and with (2) Iowa’s antidegradation policy (IAC 567-­‐61.2(2)). When a facility proposes to discharge a new or increased amount of any pollutant, an antidegradation “alternatives analysis” must be performed. The alternatives analysis must consider non-­‐degrading and less degrading alternatives to the increased discharge, and the facility must implement the least-­‐degrading alternative that is practicable, affordable and cost efficient. Iowa’s antidegradation policy applies on a pollutant-­‐by-­‐pollutant basis, meaning that the alternatives analysis must consider each pollutant that will be discharged in an increased amount. These pollutants would include any new or increased discharge of total nitrogen or total phosphorus. 3
Total Maximum Daily Loads A total maximum daily load (TMDL) is a calculation that determines the maximum amount of a pollutant that can enter a stream or lake from different sources and still allow the stream or lake to meet the Iowa water quality standards. The IDNR is required by the CWA to determine the TMDL for all waters identified on the state’s CWA Section 303(d) impaired waters list. These TMDL calculations must be reviewed and approved by EPA. One part of the TMDL calculation is the point source wasteload allocation (WLA), which may be used to calculate water quality-­‐based effluent limitations to include in an NPDES permit. When determining the appropriate point source WLA to be used in the TMDL calculation, the IDNR will consider this point source nutrient strategy as the basis for setting the WLA for point sources. The IDNR will not impose effluent limitations in NPDES permits that require load reductions beyond the reductions achieved by implementation of this strategy unless it is determined necessary to allow the stream or lake to meet Iowa water quality standards. Monitoring in NPDES Permits The Iowa Administrative Code (567 IAC 63.3(1), Table II) specifies the minimum monitoring requirements that must be included in NPDES permits issued to POTWs and industries with continuous discharge wastewater treatment plants that treat organic waste. These requirements include final effluent monitoring for total nitrogen and total phosphorus using 24-­‐hr composite samples with the sampling frequency determined by the size (design Population Equivalent -­‐ PE) of the treatment works. The sampling frequency is once every 3 months for plants with a design PE of 3,001 to 15,000 and once every 2 months for larger plants. Permits issued since 2009 to POTWs and to industries with biological treatment plants have specified these minimum requirements. At present there are only a few NPDES permits issued to major wastewater treatment facilities in Iowa that require either total nitrogen or total phosphorus monitoring or both. The IDNR will continue to specify total nitrogen and total phosphorus monitoring in permits issued to continuous dischargers with biological treatment including both POTWs and industries. Facilities are strongly encouraged to begin monitoring programs for TP and TN prior to NPDES permit reissuance to better assess current nutrient loading and removal capabilities that are possible with their existing treatment systems. Before starting a monitoring program, a facility should consult with IDNR and develop a sampling plan to ensure that a sufficient amount of good quality data is collected at appropriate locations and that samples will be analyzed for the correct parameters using appropriate methods. The minimum monitoring frequencies for total nitrogen and total phosphorus for industries that do not discharge an organic waste will be determined using the rule-­‐referenced Supporting Document For Permit Monitoring Frequency Determination, August 2008 but will not be less frequent than once per quarter and may be as frequent as once per week. IDNR will identify the appropriate total nitrogen and total phosphorus lab testing methods for wastewater and ambient stream water quality to ensure consistent data and allow for accurate accounting of removal of nutrients from wastewater treatment plants. These lab methods may be specified in NPDES permits with total nitrogen and total phosphorus testing requirements. Construction Schedules NPDES regulations allow permits to include schedules of compliance to provide facilities additional time to achieve compliance with Clean Water Act regulations. Such schedules must require compliance as soon as possible but may not extend a final compliance date specified in the Clean Water Act. Because all Clean Water Act deadlines for meeting technology-­‐based effluent limits have passed, permits cannot include a schedule of compliance for meeting new technology-­‐based limits for TN or TP that will be established in accordance with this strategy. In order to comply with federal regulations yet still provide facilities with time to modify operations or treatment systems to reduce nutrient discharges, permits will establish construction schedules for installing 4
or modifying facilities to remove nutrients. Nutrient limits will not be specified in permits until after facilities have been constructed, optimized and monitored to demonstrate nutrient reduction capabilities. In other words, nutrient limits will not be added to the NPDES permit until a facility has already shown that it complies with the final limits for TN and TP. Two options exist for specifying technology-­‐based limits and construction schedules: (1) a construction schedule for installing or modifying facilities to reduce nutrients will be established in the NPDES permit. Following construction completion, facility optimization, and a performance evaluation period, effluent limits will be added to the NPDES permit; or, (2) effluent limits will be included in the NPDES permit and a consent administrative order will be issued concurrently that would establish a construction schedule for installing or modifying facilities to remove nutrients. Permittees will be allowed to select which option they prefer. Implementation Plan All major municipal and industrial facilities, and minor industrial facilities that already treat process wastewater using biological treatment, will be required to evaluate the economic and technical feasibility for reducing nutrient discharges. This evaluation will be based on a goal of achieving annual average mass limits equivalent to effluent concentrations of 10 mg/L TN and 1 mg/L TP. These concentrations are consistent with the minimum levels considered achievable using biological nutrient removal at a wastewater treatment facility that treats primarily domestic sewage. Technology-­‐based effluent limits for nutrients for facilities addressed in this strategy must be developed on a case-­‐by-­‐case basis consistent with IAC 567-­‐62.8(5) and will be developed using the procedures specified in 40 CFR Part 125 Subpart A. Such limits will be based on the effect of the pollutant in water and the feasibility and reasonableness of treating the pollutant. Based on information available to IDNR today it is anticipated that permits will not specify limits more stringent than 10 mg/L TN and 1 mg/L TP where biological treatment is the primary means of achieving the nutrient reduction goals. Biological treatment processes are more efficient at reducing nutrients at higher water temperatures and higher quality wastewater effluent is typically produced in the spring, summer, and fall than in the winter. Thus, while properly designed and operated biological treatment systems may not achieve levels of 10 mg/L TN and 1 mg/L TP at all times, monitoring results averaged over the entire year should result in effluent concentrations at or below these levels {See page 2}. The IDNR realizes that some treatment facilities may not be able to achieve these limits due to higher concentrations of TN or TP in the raw wastewater than are typically found in domestic sewage. In these cases the goal is to achieve equivalent annual percentage reductions in raw wastewater of 66% TN and 75% TP. If a permitted discharger installs nutrient reduction processes and technology-­‐based TN and TP limits are included in the NPDES permit, then it is the position of the IDNR that the TN and TP discharge limits will not be made more restrictive for a period of at least 10 years after the completion of the nutrient reduction process construction unless it is determined that more restrictive limits are necessary to ensure the stream or lake will meet Iowa water quality standards. Iowa Code section 455B.173(3C) establishes the moratorium on more restrictive limits for municipal dischargers. For non-­‐municipal discharges, this prohibition can be enforced through the permitting process or as a part of the adoption of any future nutrient limitation. A report of nutrient removal performance will be submitted to IDNR once facilities are constructed and have operated for a period of five years. Implementation Plan Details Requirements for evaluating nutrient removal will be specified in the next NPDES permit issued following the finalization of this strategy for all major municipal and industrial permits and for minor industrial facilities with existing biological treatment plants (see Section 3.3). The requirements to be included in the 5
permit will vary according to the following: 1) Treatment already installed; 2) Treatment not installed and no capacity increases are planned; 3) Treatment not installed and capacity increases are planned; and 4) Treatment impracticable. The term “treatment” as used in the context of this strategy means treatment to reduce TN and/or TP. It is expected that most facilities will install and operate biological nutrient removal processes but nothing in this strategy precludes the use of other processes and techniques to achieve nutrient reductions similar to biological nutrient removal. Category 1) Treatment already installed a) Installed and Operating: If treatment is installed and has been operated at a given plant and the IDNR determines that a sufficient amount of data is available with which to establish plant performance, then the NPDES permit will specify technology-­‐based limits. These limits will be determined on a case-­‐by-­‐case basis using actual plant performance data and the permit will require influent and effluent monitoring for both TN and TP. b) Installed and NOT Operating: If treatment is installed at a given plant and has not been operated, then the NPDES permit will require the treatment facilities to be operated. Technology-­‐based effluent limits for TN and TP will be determined on a case-­‐by-­‐case basis using actual plant performance data. The limits will be added to the NPDES permit by amendment at the end of a six-­‐month process optimization period and a 12-­‐month performance evaluation period. The NPDES permit will require influent and effluent monitoring for both parameters. Category 2) Treatment not installed and no capacity increases are planned If treatment is not installed and no increases in treatment facility design capacity are planned, then the reissued NPDES permit will include requirements for the facility within two years of reissuance of the NPDES permit to submit a report with the results of a study that evaluates the feasibility, reasonableness and costs of installing treatment to remove nutrients. The report will also include a proposed schedule for when treatment will be installed if it is found to be feasible and reasonable. The negotiated schedule will be incorporated into either the NPDES permit or an administrative consent order (See Construction Schedules above). Technology-­‐based TN and TP discharge limits will be determined at the end of a six-­‐month process optimization period and a 12-­‐month performance evaluation period following the treatment process startup. The performance evaluation will include a determination of technologically achievable TN and TP concentrations. The NPDES permit will be amended to include TN and TP limits as determined from the performance evaluation. The NPDES permit will require influent and effluent monitoring for both parameters. Category 3) Treatment not installed and capacity increases are planned If treatment is not installed and increases in treatment plant design capacity are planned, then the evaluation of nutrient removal feasibility will be conducted as part of the construction permitting process through current antidegradation rules and procedures. Nutrient removal will be encouraged anytime construction is proposed. If nutrient removal is included in the plant expansion, then the NPDES permit will be amended to include effluent limits for TN and TP after a six-­‐month optimization period and 12-­‐month performance evaluation period following treatment
process startup, the same as the Category 2 procedures. The NPDES permit will require influent and effluent monitoring for both TN and TP. If nutrient removal is not included with the plant expansion, then the NPDES permit will be written using the procedure in Category 2 above. Category 4) Treatment impracticable A facility with one or more nutrient discharges that exceed 10 mg/L TN or 1 mg/L TP but where the characteristics of the wastewater make treatment impracticable will be required by its next permit to submit a report within two years of reissuance of the permit with the results of a study that evaluates operational changes and costs for achieving nutrient reductions. The report will also include a proposed schedule for implementing the option or options determined to be feasible and 6
affordable. The permit will either be amended or an administrative consent order will be issued to include the schedule. Following implementation of operational changes determined to be feasible and reasonable, a six-­‐month optimization period, and a 12-­‐month performance evaluation period, the permit will be amended to include effluent limits determined from the performance evaluation. The NPDES permit will require effluent monitoring for both TN and TP. Effluent limits for TN and TP will be expressed as annual average mass limits. The department will document how the mass limits are calculated in the permit rationale prepared at the time the permit is amended to include TN and TP limits. The annual average discharge will be the sum of all measurements for a given pollutant collected during a 12-­‐month period beginning on the date the permit limit is effective divided by the number of measurements made. For example, assume that TN measurements are made once per month. The annual average is determined by adding the 12 monthly measurements and dividing by 12. 7
Section 3.2 -­‐ Cost Estimates Estimated Costs for BNR I mprovements for Muncipal Majors (Target Effluent TN = 10 mg/L, Target Effluent TP = 1 mg/L)
Treatment Type
Activated Sludge
Fixed Film
Aerated Lagoon
Totals
Combined Combined Annual $/1,000 Design Total Annual Total Present Total Weighted Monthly Weighted % # of AWW Flow Average Total Capital O&M Cost Worth Cost Annual gallons Facilities (MGD)
Flow1 (MGD) Cost ($M)
($M)
($M)2
Cost ($M) Treated3 Cost/Household 4 of MHI4
56
533
355
348
25
686
51
0.39
7.75
0.18%
37
101
67
430
7
524
39
1.59
25.83
0.73%
9
11
8
110
3
147
11
3.92
85.16
2.13%
102
645
430
887
35
1,358
101
0.64
5
11.85
5
0.29%
1. Average annual flow estimated as 2/3 of design AWW flow.
2. Present w orth values calculated using discount rate o f 4.125% and a 20-­‐year design life.
3. Based on annual average flow.
4. % of MHI for BNR improvements o nly. Estimates w eighted by number o f households.
5. Aggregate value weighted by number of households.
8
Section 3.3 -­‐ List of Affected Facilities Major Municipalities (> 1.0 MGD): NPDES NO. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 FACILITY NAME TREATMENT TYPE 2010 POPULATION 2503001 5502001 8503001 5307001 ADEL CITY OF STP ALGONA CITY OF STP AMES WATER POLLUTION CONTROL FACILITY ANAMOSA CITY OF STP AERATED LAGOON TRICKLING FILTER TRICKLING FILTER TRICKLING FILTER 3,682 5,560 58,965 5,533 7709001 1509001 2613001 819001 ANKENY CITY OF STP ATLANTIC CITY OF STP BLOOMFIELD CITY OF STP (MAIN) BOONE CITY OF STP ACTIVATED SLUDGE TRICKLING FILTER AERATED LAGOON ACTIVATED SLUDGE 45,582 7,112 2,640 12,661 4103001 2909001 9113001 1415001 709001 BRITT CITY OF STP BURLINGTON CITY OF STP CARLISLE CITY OF STP CARROLL, CITY OF STP CEDAR FALLS CITY OF STP TRICKLING FILTER ACTIVATED SLUDGE AERATED LAGOON ACTIVATED SLUDGE TRICKLING FILTER 2,069 25,663 3,876 10,103 39,260 5715001 407003 5903001 3405001 1811002 CEDAR RAPIDS CITY OF STP CENTERVILLE CITY OF STP (EAST) CHARITON CITY OF STP CHARLES CITY, CITY OF STP CHEROKEE CITY OF STP ACTIVATED SLUDGE ROTATING BIOLOGICAL CONTACTOR OXIDATION DITCH TRICKLING FILTER ACTIVATED SLUDGE 126,326 5,528 4,321 7,652 5,253 7329001 1716901 2326001 5208001 7820001 CLARINDA CITY OF STP CLEAR LAKE SANITARY DISTRICT CLINTON CITY OF STP CORALVILLE CITY OF STP COUNCIL BLUFFS CITY OF STP TRICKLING FILTER SEQUENCING BATCH REACTOR ACTIVATED SLUDGE SEQUENCING BATCH REACTOR TRICKLING FILTER 5,572 26,885 18,907 62,230 4515001 8816001 8222003 9630001 2424001 CRESCO CITY OF STP CRESTON CITY OF STP DAVENPORT CITY OF STP DECORAH CITY OF STP DENISON MUNICIPAL UTILITIES-­‐STP ACTIVATED SLUDGE TRICKLING FILTER ACTIVATED SLUDGE ACTIVATED SLUDGE ACTIVATED SLUDGE 3,868 7,834 99,685 8,127 8,298 7727001 2330001 3126001 9926001 DES MOINES METROPOLITAN WRF DEWITT CITY OF STP DUBUQUE CITY OF STP EAGLE GROVE, CITY OF STP ACTIVATED SLUDGE OXIDATION DITCH ACTIVATED SLUDGE ROTATING BIOLOGICAL CONTACTOR 203,483 5,322 57,637 3,583 4236001 8230003 7428002 3218002 723001 ELDORA CITY OF STP ELDRIDGE, CITY OF SOUTH SLOPE EMMETSBURG CITY OF STP ESTHERVILLE CITY OF STP EVANSDALE CITY OF STP SEQUENCING BATCH REACTOR SEQUENCING BATCH REACTOR ROTATING BIOLOGICAL CONTACTOR TRICKLING FILTER ACTIVATED SLUDGE 2,732 5,651 3,904 6,360 4,751 5131001 9525001 9433003 5625001 6525001 FAIRFIELD CITY OF STP FOREST CITY, CITY OF STP FORT DODGE CITY OF STP FORT MADISON CITY OF STP GMU WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY OXIDATION DITCH ROTATING BIOLOGICAL CONTACTOR ACTIVATED SLUDGE ACTIVATED SLUDGE ROTATING BIOLOGICAL CONTACTOR 9,464 4,151 25,206 11,051 5,269 140001 GREENFIELD CITY OF STP TRICKLING FILTER 1,982 9
44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 7736001 7930001 3833001 8335002 GRIMES, CITY OF STP GRINNELL, CITY OF STP GRUNDY CENTER CITY OF STP HARLAN CITY OF STP ACTIVATED SLUDGE TRICKLING FILTER SEQUENCING BATCH REACTOR ROTATING BIOLOGICAL CONTACTOR 8,264 9,218 2,706 5,106 4641001 1037001 9133001 5225001 5225002 HUMBOLDT CITY OF STP INDEPENDENCE CITY OF STP INDIANOLA CITY OF STP (NORTH) IOWA CITY, CITY OF (NORTH) STP IOWA CITY, CITY OF (SOUTH) STP ACTIVATED SLUDGE TRICKLING FILTER ACTIVATED SLUDGE TRICKLING FILTER ACTIVATED SLUDGE 4,690 5,966 14,782 67,862 4260001 3050901 1044002 5640001 6342001 IOWA FALLS CITY OF STP IOWA GREAT LAKES SANITARY DISTRICT STP JESUP, CITY OF STP (SOUTH) KEOKUK CITY OF STP KNOXVILLE CITY OF STP TRICKLING FILTER ACTIVATED SLUDGE AERATED LAGOON ACTIVATED SLUDGE TRICKLING FILTER 5,238 2,520 10,780 7,313 7540001 4950001 6469001 1750001 LEMARS CITY OF STP MAQUOKETA CITY OF STP MARSHALLTOWN CITY OF MASON CITY, CITY OF STP ACTIVATED SLUDGE ACTIVATED SLUDGE SEQUENCING BATCH REACTOR ACTIVATED SLUDGE 9,826 6,141 27,552 28,079 6352001 7751001 7950001 5343001 4453001 MELCHER-­‐DALLAS CITY OF STP MITCHELLVILLE CITY OF STP MONTEZUMA CITY OF STP MONTICELLO CITY OF STP MOUNT PLEASANT CITY OF STP (MAIN) AERATED LAGOON SEQUENCING BATCH REACTOR AERATED LAGOON TRICKLING FILTER SEQUENCING BATCH REACTOR 1,288 2,254 1,462 3,796 8,668 5758001 7048001 8562001 1970001 5059002 MOUNT VERNON CITY OF STP MUSCATINE CITY OF STP NEVADA CITY OF STP NEW HAMPTON CITY OF STP NEWTON CITY OF STP ACTIVATED SLUDGE ACTIVATED SLUDGE TRICKLING FILTER TRICKLING FILTER ACTIVATED SLUDGE 4,506 22,886 6,798 3,571 15,254 5252001 3353001 8474001 2038002 6273001 NORTH LIBERTY CITY OF STP OELWEIN CITY OF STP ORANGE CITY CITY OF STP OSCEOLA CITY OF STP OSKALOOSA CITY OF STP (NORTHEAST) SEQUENCING BATCH REACTOR ACTIVATED SLUDGE AERATED LAGOON TRICKLING FILTER TRICKLING FILTER 13,374 6,415 6,004 4,929 6273002 9083001 6368006 2561001 6950001 OSKALOOSA CITY OF STP (SOUTHWEST) OTTUMWA CITY OF STP PELLA CITY OF STP PERRY CITY OF STP RED OAK CITY OF STP ACTIVATED SLUDGE ACTIVATED SLUDGE ACTIVATED SLUDGE ACTIVATED SLUDGE TRICKLING FILTER 11,463 25,023 10,352 7,702 5,742 1376001 7170001 3659001 8486002 ROCKWELL CITY, CITY OF STP SHELDON CITY OF STP SHENANDOAH CITY OF STP SIOUX CENTER CITY OF STP TRICKLING FILTER ROTATING BIOLOGICAL CONTACTOR TRICKLING FILTER TRICKLING FILTER 1,709 5,188 5,150 7,048 9778001 2171004 1178001 8670002 1689001 SIOUX CITY CITY OF STP SPENCER, CITY OF STP STORM LAKE CITY OF STP TAMA CITY OF STP TIPTON CITY OF STP (WEST) ACTIVATED SLUDGE ROTATING BIOLOGICAL CONTACTOR ACTIVATED SLUDGE ACTIVATED SLUDGE AERATED LAGOON 82,684 11,233 10,600 2,877 3,221 8676001 688001 TOLEDO CITY OF STP VINTON CITY OF STP ACTIVATED SLUDGE ACTIVATED SLUDGE 2,341 5,257 10
93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 7085001 9271001 790001 2573001 WALCOTT CITY OF STP (SOUTH) WASHINGTON CITY OF STP WATERLOO CITY OF STP WAUKEE CITY OF STP ACTIVATED SLUDGE TRICKLING FILTER ACTIVATED SLUDGE ACTIVATED SLUDGE 1,629 7,266 68,406 13,790 398001 990001 4063001 2985001 7073001 WAUKON CITY OF STP WAVERLY CITY OF STP WEBSTER CITY, CITY OF STP WEST BURLINGTON CITY OF STP WEST LIBERTY CITY OF STP TRICKLING FILTER TRICKLING FILTER ROTATING BIOLOGICAL CONTACTOR ACTIVATED SLUDGE ACTIVATED SLUDGE 3,897 9,874 8,070 2,968 3,736 6171001 WINTERSET CITY OF STP TRICKLING FILTER 5,190 Major Industries 1 NPDES NO. 2326101 FACILITY NAME ARCHER DANIELS MIDLAND CORN PROCESSING TREATMENT TYPE ACTIVATED SLUDGE 2 6800100 CARGILL, INC. ACTIVATED SLUDGE 3 7048101 GRAIN PROCESSING CORP. ACTIVATED SLUDGE 4 5800100 TYSON FRESH MEATS, INC. -­‐ COLUMBUS JUNCTION ACTIVATED SLUDGE 5 2500100 TYSON FRESH MEATS, INC. -­‐ PERRY ACTIVATED SLUDGE 6 2900900 IOWA ARMY AMMUNITION PLANT TRICKLING FILTER 7 7000102 MONSANTO COMPANY ACTIVATED SLUDGE 8 5640101 ROQUETTE AMERICA, INC. ACTIVATED SLUDGE 9 8670100 TAMA PAPERBOARD ACTIVATED SLUDGE 10 2326112 EQUISTAR CHEMICALS, LP ACTIVATED SLUDGE 11 8278100 ALCOA, INC. DAVENPORT WORKS NO BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT 12 5625106 CLIMAX MOLYBDENUM COMPANY NO BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT 13 9700101 GELITA USA, INC. AERATED LAGOON 14 7700119 GREATER DES MOINES ENERGY CENTER NO BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT 15 2900101 IPL -­‐ BURLINGTON GENERATING STATION NO BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT 16 0300100 IPL -­‐ LANSING STATION NO BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT 17 5715108 IPL -­‐ PRAIRIE CREEK GENERATING STATION NO BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT 18 3126107 JOHN DEERE DUBUQUE WORKS ACTIVATED SLUDGE 19 0790103 JOHN DEERE WATERLOO WORKS NO BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT 20 9700102 MIDAMERICAN ENERGY -­‐ NEAL NORTH ENERGY CENTER NO BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT 21 9700106 MIDAMERICAN ENERGY -­‐ NEAL SOUTH ENERGY CTR NO BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT 22 8278101 MIDAMERICAN ENERGY CO -­‐ RIVERSIDE STATION NO BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT 23 5800105 MIDAMERICAN ENERGY CO. -­‐ LOUISA STATION NO BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT 24 7048106 MUSCATINE POWER AND WATER NO BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT 25 5700104 NEXTERA ENERGY DUANE ARNOLD, LLC NO BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT 26 9700104 PORT NEAL CORPORATION NO BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT 27 5225101 UNIVERSITY OF IOWA POWER PLANT NO BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT 28 7820101 WALTER SCOTT, JR. ENERGY CENTER NO BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT 29 4802102 WHIRLPOOL CORP -­‐ AMANA APPLIANCE DIVISION ACTIVATED SLUDGE 11
Minor Industries with Biological Treatment for Process Wastewater: NPDES NO. FACILITY NAME TREATMENT TYPE 1 0375102 AGRI STAR MEAT AND POULTRY LLC ACTIVATED SLUDGE 2 9083101 CARGILL MEAT SOLUTIONS CORPORATION OXIDATION DITCH 3 8670101 IOWA PREMIUM BEEF AERATED LAGOON 4 1178105 TYSON FRESH MEATS, INC. -­‐ STORM LAKE ACTIVATED SLUDGE 5 7856100 OAKLAND FOODS, L.L.C. SEQUENCING BATCH REACTOR 6 5600105 PINNACLE FOODS GROUP LLC ACTIVATED SLUDGE 7 8748102 MICHAEL FOODS, INC. ACTIVATED SLUDGE 8 9500102 REMBRANDT ENTERPRISES, INC. -­‐ THOMPSON AERATED LAGOON 9 8400120 AGROPUR INC. SEQUENCING BATCH REACTOR 10 3621100 MANILDRA MILLING CORPORATION ACTIVATED SLUDGE 11 6800113 AJINOMOTO HEARTLAND LLC ACTIVATED SLUDGE 12 2200100 SWISS VALLEY FARMS ACTIVATED SLUDGE 13 2500103 NORTHERN NATURAL GAS CO – REDFIELD AERATED LAGOON 14 3300100 ASSOCIATED MILK PRODUCERS AERATED LAGOON 15 3405100 CAMBREX ACTIVATED SLUDGE 16 3900103 GUTHRIE CENTER EGG FARM AERATED LAGOON 17 5200104 TWIN COUNTY DAIRY, INC. AERATED LAGOON 12
Section 3.4 – Conceptual Flow Chart 13
3.5 References Falk, M.W., Neethling, J.B., Reardon D.J. 2011. Striking the Balance Between Nutrient Removal in Wastewater Treatment and Sustainability. Table 3-­‐1 for Level 3 Treatment Objective, 2011. Jeyanayagam, S. True Confessions of the Biological Removal Process. Florida Water Resources Journal: January 2005. Neethling, J.B., D. Stensel, D. Parker, C. Bott, S. Murthy, A. Pramanik, and D. Clark. 2009. What is the Limit of Technology (LOT)? A Rational and Quantitative Approach. Presented at WEFTEC, 2009. U.S. EPA. 2007. Biological Nutrient Removal Processes and Costs. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. EPA 823-­‐R-­‐07-­‐002. U.S. EPA. 1995. Interim Economic Guidance for Water Quality Standards Workbook. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. EPA 832-­‐B-­‐95-­‐002, March 1995. 14